FUEL EFFICIENCY: Simply adopting existing technologies could improve vehicle fuel efficiency by 50 percent.
Image: flickr/uzvards
Fuel efficiency of new vehicles could improve by 50 percent in the next two decades and put the world on track to curb global warming if policies are implemented to spur the adoption of automotive technologies that already exist, according to a set of reports released yesterday by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
"We cannot afford to wait for an expected electric and/or hydrogen solution," said Richard Jones, IEA's deputy executive director. "We must act now to move toward a low-carbon transport system. Without such action, transport energy demand will reach unsustainable proportions, particularly in emerging economies."
The transportation sector currently makes up one-fifth of the global energy consumption and could make up all future growth of oil use as the demand for personal mobility increases.
Gasoline and diesel vehicles will continue to dominate the marketplace over the next two decades, making up more than 90 percent of the global fleet in 2030, said the firm. But with the right mix of policies, conventional vehicles can cut fuel consumption in half in the next 20 years.
According to IEA's "Technology Roadmap," internal combustion engines can be significantly improved using cost-effective technologies, such as variable valve actuation and lift, dual-clutch transmission and downsizing. Hybridizing the drive train can cut a vehicle's fuel use by as much as a quarter but comes at a higher cost.
Optimizing the vehicle body with improved aerodynamics and lighter-weight materials can also improve fuel economy. Finally, changing driver behavior with eco-driving training, or the avoidance of sudden starts and stops and idling, can improve fuel efficiency up to 10 percent.
Better consumer education involved
"The report estimates that when you put all those technologies together, you can improve the fuel economy of the average 2005 vehicle by 50 percent without hybridization and 60 percent when you have a full hybrid vehicle," said François Cuenot, an energy analyst with IEA.
The related "Policy Pathway" report explains that better labeling and consumer education, vehicle purchase incentives and fuel economy standards are needed to help bring necessary technologies to market.
Places that have set fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, including the United States, Europe and Japan, have greatly improved their fuel efficiency in recent years.
The situation is getting better, said Cuenot, but the rate of improvement is too slow to meet the long-term target to keep global warming within 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. To achieve that goal, fuel economy would need to double at a growth rate of 3 percent per year between now and 2030, he said.
Meanwhile, fuel use has started to spike in emerging economies, including India, Mexico and China. In 2008, the average fuel economy of developing countries became worse than the average of developed countries as people bought more and bigger vehicles.
Developing countries will account for two-thirds of energy use in the transport sector by 2050.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentGreat and fueled with nuke electric vehicles and nuke synfuels now 30% the cost of petrol, transpo energy now a huge percentage of world energy COSTS will drop to almost naught.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout subsidies nuclear would be four times as expensive, making it the most expensive source of energy in the solar system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is not counting the cost of safeguarding the waste for centuries
Your obsessive plugging of nuclear... been to Chernobyl? Just curious. Why I ask? Heard what happened to the birds there? Been to Fukushima? Why I ask? Cos your plug stings like a Japanese butterfly and floats like a Chernobyl bee.
"Places that have set fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, including the United States, Europe and Japan, have greatly improved their fuel efficiency in recent years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould read more like "have improved their new-vehicle fuel efficiency in recent years." The US new vehicle fleet efficiency has risen 2.8mpg in the past four years. But that's just the new vehicle efficiency. The article makes it sound like the existing and new fleet combined have increased greatly. That's simply not true - the fleet economy has barely budged, and new vehicle economy has only increased 7.4% over four years.
Helps if you read the total cost of enriching, storage for life, protection, meltdowns. and the list goes on $$$$$$$.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you a paid promoter?
Wind an solar where do you see all these extra $$$$$.
I actually have read a fair amount about what's happened to wildlife around Chernobyl. It's flourishing. It has problems--some immune system difficulties, some organs are of different sizes, and the rats are much larger than normal--but by and large, it's returned to a natural state not seen in decades or even centuries. It's not the desert wasteland that was predicted when the incident occurred.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChernobyl was also an old, poorly-designed plant even by Soviet standards. Much of the management had no business being near a reactor, much less in charge of one. Modern designs--if they can get built--will be far safer with passive shutdown mechanisms (thereby avoiding another Fukushima). We also have the option of reprocessing, a step long practiced in France which extends the life of the fuel and vastly decreases. As it stands, we want to store it when it has released less than 2% of the energy that it holds. That's extremely wasteful by anyone's standards.
The info you rely on is to my knowledge rather outdated as until a few years it was assumed that damage was not as bad as feared, and based in part on interest group conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there are two positives:
- the absence of human activity has turned the area into a wildlife recovery zone, making the combination of recovery and radioactivity extremely interesting to study;
- wildlife is far worsely affected than previously thought; I will simplify by suggesting that what happens to butterflies in Fukushima, that deformations get worse by each generation, is rather true for the fauna in general but amazingly not so for rodents which are thriving without any noticeable problems or deformities.
As for the flora recovery, most of it looked initially untouched or even doing better than before but is now degrading the more rapidly.
(My personal opinion is that the rodents will eventually suffer as badly as the rest.)
Search "red forest chernobyl".
Sigh....How about something simple like synchronizing the traffic lights so I don't accelerate from 0 to 50 MPH only to have the next light turn red and need to immediately stop. I drive a large SUV (we can debate if it is better for the environment to use energy to create a new fuel efficient car or maintain an older gas guzzler - bet folks are pssionate both ways) and this is a killer for me. Newton got it....an object in motion wants to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill somebody please build a traffic light network platform so all the lights can be as friendly as possible in all directions at each intersection. The old timing system with limited sensors is not nearly as intelligent as a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll. There are a lot of cameras on traffic signal posts these days in California . . . bet they could detect traffic too. What is the hold up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiselectrolysis...how much energy would it take to fuel a car with water. hydrogen and oxygen, Why could these be have them carberated together? H2O with a battery system..interesting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTorchlake -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the hydrogen and oxygen in water have very strong bonds and it takes a lot of energy to separate them into their elemental forms.
Dave @47 -
My point exactly. The sensors-in-the-road system penalizes folks for driving a safe distance behind another car. No cars - light turns red.
When I was in graduate school, the school was eight miles from the interstate on a road with lots of stops lights. When I drove the speed limits I'd hit every one as red. About 17MPH over the speed limits I could consistently make the entire eight miles without ever seeing a red light.
My American car has been averaging 32 MPG since I bought it new in 2000. I do not want to buy an new vehicle unless there is a substantial gain in fuel economy. But the market now acts as if 30-35 MPG for an IC vehicle is an advancement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am cautious about hybrids because of the complexity and concern of maintenance expenses after purchase.
I want to purchase an electric, but the price seems a little high, even with the $7,500 tax credit, and the range is not up to my current needs.
My real opinion is that we should be more than a decade ahead of what is available today. I can appreciate the commenter, Bear's dilemma of whether to sell his gas guzzler or sit tight for the ride to better choices. Carter put us on track to a national energy policy; Ragen stopped it as quickly as he could upon taking office.
And Seth, really; this is the opening you make to debate nuclear power? I expected better from you :) You must have been really short on time-lol.
As others have alluded to, the area surrounding Chernobyl is currently one of the richest emerging ecosystems on the planet. It possesses the world's largest population of both wolves and eagles. The benefits of the absence of humans has far outweighed the presence of radiation, to which other animals display a far higher tolerance to than we humans do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, intelligent solutions like synchronized lights make even a gas-guzzler use less. If you are satisfied with your car, keep it. If you don't know already, learn to be easy on the throttle. Don't use it when you can walk it. Get another one only when it gets too old to repair or too expensive to maintain. If the weather in your parts allows, get a scooter. Strictly my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<the area surrounding Chernobyl is currently one of the richest emerging ecosystems on the planet>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou got those news completely wrong. Not that I blame you as you will see. The absence of humans has made the place interesting for all wildlife. But that does not mean it is a healthy place for them. Would you eat steak from Chernobyl? Wildberry jam? Cut and store its wood in your barn and heat your house with it? There you go.
In the longterm I even predict that certain genetic damage picked up by the fauna will be passed down the line to animals outside the area.
But I believe I understand where you come from. It's headlines such as "Despite mutations, Chernobyl wildlife is thriving" from National Geographic that is giving the completely wrong impression. I kept that headline as a perfect example of irresponsible reporting. Chernobyl wildlife is NOT thriving despite mutations, it only APPEARS to be thriving because of human absence, which in combination with radioactivity makes it one of the most interesting ecosystems to study. It is only when you reach the lower half of the article that you notice the stupidity of that irresponsible headline: "But while wildlife SEEMS to be proliferating in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, NOT EVERYONE is convinced that these plants and animals are HEALTHY." (my caps). Not everyone being scientists. Unfortunately, speedreaders who are content to fly over the first sentences will have stopped before and/or selectively remember what suits them. This is how brain-washing works and how it leads to scientific illiteracy. It's what I call "cognitive deformation from Over-Fox".But not to worry, the vast majority of modern scientists suffer from the same intellectual "mutation".
A nuclear bomb is interesting but it is not healthy.
The animals around Chernobyl are interesting but they are really little nukes on the hoof.
But go ahead, adopt one to improve the wildlife in your neighborhood.
Technology is in favor of the improvement of vehicles' fuel economy. The simple idea of stopping the engine when in an halt for a red traffic light was not feasible 30 years ago, as the electrical starters of internal combustion engines didn't resist so many cycles of starting the gas engine. Recently, it has been proposed that a new technology that uses only copper for the core of electrical motors, without the need for the expensive rare metals, can greatly improve its efficiency (SAE news), things seem moving in the right direction, just some way of hurrying on the process may be needed, and tax reductions is a simple, efficacious and cost-effective approach for this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMythbusters ran a piece a while ago about dimpling the exterior of a car like a golf ball. As memory serves it was extremely effective, increasing fuel economy by 20%?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems silly, but certainly more cost effective than electrics/hybrids etc.
Silly anthropocentic comment. If these animals are more abundant and live longer lives than in human dominated areas, from the animals viewpoint it's a win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not about people. From the animals' viewpoint Chernobyl may be the best thing since sliced bread.
"little nukes on the hoof" ---puhleeze!
Traffic Light Timing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to those who are pointing out the obvious inefficiency of poorly timed traffic lights.
The answer to this problem comes from a matrix equation of every street and road within an area. The distances between intersections, speed limits and road capacity can be found with a map.
The solution to the matrix equation is the frequency, phase and duration of the light timing at each intersection, so that groups of cars approaching from different directions will arrive out of phase.
With proper traffic light timing, cars will typically be able to get a green light every time they reach an intersection, so long as they are going the speed limit and continuing on the same road. Usually, a car will only have to wait at a red light for a left turn, or if the amount of traffic is beyond the system capacity. The system would not be perfect, so there will be some times when cars have to wait. Priority should be given to roads of higher capacity, use and length. An additional benefit of proper traffic light timing is higher capacity of existing roads.
I hope to solve this problem and provide the solution to cities that are interested in better traffic flow. Can someone please sponsor me to work on the problem? (Yes, a city and a manufacturer of traffic light timing hardware can. Will they? Please?) It will take some time and effort to find the solution. A sponsor can make the difference between solving a problem and implementing a real solution within a reasonable time, as compared to solving a problem as a hobby for someone who is interested in solving math puzzles. Who is in a position to support the solution of these problems?
Thanks,
-Tony
Bet they do. Lotta cameras on traffic lights around here too. They're there to detect vehicles and are used in place of the in-road sensors. I hear they're much better at detecting motorcycles and vehicles with less iron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJctyler has the current cut at Chernobyl - the documentary is called "Radioactive Wolves". But nuke plants need a serious new advance in technology before the downside of accident or disaster is contained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article misleads - the '50% less fuel' is ... gasoline.
KJM's comment is just confusing - "new vehicle economy has only increased 7.4% over four years." What do you mean "only" - that's the second-largest four-year improvement in the history of the fleet (77-81 takes first). And it's only the front-end of an auto culture that 'gets it' for prioritizing gas-use reduction.
<If these animals are more abundant and live longer lives than in human dominated areas>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF...
They are more abundant for the only reason that there is no human interference, same as buffaloes and wolves in Yellowstone.
How do you conclude that they live longer? Any proof other than them not being shot? Pure nuke fanatic fantasy! They don't live longer on average but many die a very painful death from malignant mutations.
So much for your nuke shilling.
And yes, little nukes on hooves because the animals you refer to are hoofed and they are radioactive and if you had one living with you you'd become what? What do you think that was, a cheap pun to comply with the level of your comment?
Chernobyl is a disaster area and it will remain one for a very long time.
Right on and my best wishes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you mean an English version of the Austrian doc "The radioactive wolves of Chernobyl"? There's more in the meantime. All animals suffer, some who thrived in the absence of humans are dying off faster, rodents are still doing fine, birds can't cope at all, old people in the area seem to adapt as long as one overlooks that those who couldn't have died. Some trees became gigantic, everybody went ah... the same trees now grow only to bush size.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a mess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI already use far less than the 50% reduction using 60's tech.
My Harley size EV trike gets 600mpge and my all composite stronger than steel 2 seat sportwagon gets about 250mpge. These are fairly simple, just a large 'starter' and lead batteries.
EV;'s can be done faster than ICE's upgrading. In fact the only way to upgrade ICE's is to add EV/hybrid drive to it.
Sethdayal is rather a-nal about nukes lying about them by not saying their bad points, lying about costs and present unit dangers.
That said there are many good future inherently safe nuke designs that don't use pressurized water and burn most of the fuel up so not much left thay can be a problem. Those though are 10 yrs at least in the future.
I do wind, solar for under $2k/kw in home, building sizes which over their lifetimes are cheaper than any utility fuel because they cost less than the utility overhead even with a free fuel source.
We can easily make a great future with present tech but entrenched special interests from oil, coal, nuke, big auto don't want it to happen and they own enough of congress to keep it that way for a while.
In the meantime my lightweight, cost effective EV's with fueled generator for unlimited range gives me great transport for 25% of the cost of abn ICE to run.
JCTyler - Spot on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerryD - When/how did you do the wind and solar install for your home? Did you do it yourself or pay for the materials and installation? How much did it cost you up front and what did you calculate as your return on investment?
Jerry claims: ".. I do wind, solar for under $2k/kw in home, building sizes which over their lifetimes are cheaper than any utility fuel because they cost less than the utility overhead.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must have a lot of contracts Jerry, since the avg installed cost of Solar PV in Florida is $7,920 per PEAK kw according to the latest NREL data. Notice how Jerry always tries to pretend peak output is avg output. With capacity factor of Tampa Florida, fixed tilt of 15.6%, assuming optimal roof alignment, no shade trees or buildings and fastidious cleaning. That works out to $51,000 per AVG kw.
You can buy the latest - most highest tech machine ever built - the Virginia Class Nuclear submarine - for $2B with a 50 MW nuclear reactor with 33 yrs refuel cycle. 5 yr build time - start to finish. That's $40k per kw, with lots of added features, you don't need like missiles, sonar, propulsion, air & water recycling system, living quarters for 134 etc. And gives you power for 33 yrs on one fuel load, even when the Sun isn't shining. So it costs less to buy an American Made Nuclear Sub and park it in your neighborhood, rather than export all those jobs to China, like Jerry wants to do. And same output night/day, summer/winter, including when the big Volcanic eruption occurs (two in the 1800’s) that make Solar almost Nil for a full year.
And the Nuclear lasts for 60-100 yrs, not the 25 yrs for the Solar. And you still need a backup fuel guzzling generator for your Solar since it will crap out for weeks at a time, especially in the winter. And Jerry's Solar doesn't replace one iota of Utility Generation capacity, Generation that you still have to maintain and pay interest on. And Jerry doesn't pay for all the Grid Infrastructure and Shadowing NG Generation he uses free of charge to supply the bulk of his Solar/NG generation.
Jerry claims: "..easily make a great future with present tech but entrenched special interests from oil, coal, nuke, big auto.."
Bull. Tell us how. Come on, give us details, Jerry's Energy Plan. Germany has been on a Greenie Religious Energy binge the past 20 yrs, let's see what they accomplished:
www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
See that skinny little green line on top of the graph, that's all they accomplished. Notice they did a lot more a lot quicker with their low-priority Nuclear build. And now they are broke and can't afford much more in Wind & Solar so they are building giant strip-mined lignite dirt-burners by the dozen to supply their REAL energy needs. Some success that is.
How many billions of gallons of gasoline could be saved just by installing cameras at stoplights? A simple computer program could cycle the lights depending on where the ACTUAL traffic is, not the theoretical traffic is, which is how these lights are timed now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is needed is an all knowing scientist dictator to tell us just how we should live our lives in a correct manner. If I need a truck to run my Vineyard. I'm out of luck. What BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't know this and it seems very interesting (not my field directly but definitely climate-related); will certainly keep an eye on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for bringing this into here.
Where I live each little community controls its own roads. Cars sit idling waiting while one person can make a left turn. A designated left turn lane would replace 2 parking meters. Many other examples are possible in the bumper to bumper traffic. Of course we can't hire a competent traffic engineer for the area and put bubba out of a job. We can't raise gasoline taxes and put in a good road system because of the poor. Instead the poor must sit in an eternal traffic jam burning gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wide boulevard without the traffic jam and traffic lights bears no resemblance to this place. Increasing the miles per liter (or gallon) will not do as much good as reducing the tremendous unnecessary amount of constantly starting and stopping a ton of vehicle. Better traffic engineering would have immediate payoff as soon as the first set of traffic lights between two municipalities became properly timed. It would increase as turning lanes are added. It would reduce fuel usage in all cars, old and new.
If battery technology becomes advanced enough, gas turbines could replace internal combustion engines (even tho a gas turbine is an internal combustion engine!). Gas turbines are far more efficient than piston engines. Piston engines can change speed far faster and for that reason have been used in automobiles. (So what if a large airliner waits on the end of a runway revving up its engines letting them get up to speed before the pilot releases the brakes.)
Once batteries become light enough and inexpensive enough a gas turbine would be the way to go. They would replace the internal combustion engine just as the gas turbine has replaced the diesel engine for commercial power plants.
an electrified road ,that operated like a streetcar,would be the simplest way to save fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this